The past fortnight has seen Islamic (let’s stop calling it ‘Islamist’) violence in Nice, Turkey, Germany (twice) and the narrowest prevention of terrorism in Latin America. The breathing space between atrocities is progressively diminishing, leaving the public disorientated and confused, and politicians struggling to issue apologies and rationalisations at a matching speed.

The situation is now clear as day. In small towns and large cities alike, Westerners are no longer able to go about their everyday lives without the risk of horrific and merciless slaughter at the hands of people who shouldn’t even be in the same part of the world as them. Even if one still feels moved to deny this, one runs the risk of being interrupted mid-sentence by reports of a fresh atrocity. In the time it takes to say the sentence ‘Not all Muslims are like this’, the chances are some fresh batch of innocent humans have been dispatched to an early grave by Islamic hands. It is no wonder then that even the most doctrinaire leftists are pausing for as long as possible before offering excuses for their pet Rottweiler’s latest ‘aberration’.

Where is all this leading? Where can it possibly end? It is to me entirely infeasible to expect Europeans or Americans to put up with Islamic violence indefinitely. Even a castrated man still possesses adrenaline – the base material of anger and resistance; the same is true of a castrated population. It may take time, and I cannot say exactly when it will happen, but there will one day be a ferocious rebellion against the deteriorating condition of the Western World; a unified, grassroots drive to wind the clock back in order to wind it forwards. Who knows who will start it, or what event will provide the back-breaking straw. We can only be sure that it will happen.

And what will it look like when it does happen? Fascism? Concentration camps? Ultra-nationalist racism and anti-democratic thuggery? On current trends, I see no reason why not. Madame Le Pen, with her indoctrinated anti-German bigotry and anti-free-market fanaticism, is fast rising in France. The anti-Semitic far-right in Austria only narrowly lost out in the country’s last presidential election and look set to make it the next time around. And here in the UK, renegade Brexit supporters, buoyed by their unexpected triumph in June, are attacking foreigners en masse; not only third-world migrants, but also Poles, Bulgarians, Portuguese and Ukrainians.

Let there be no doubt about whose fault this is. It is the doing of Muslims and of Islam, a toxic degeneracy that, having long ago ruined the countries now oppressed under the star and crescent, is actively poisoning the world. Islam is ruining everything.

Before September 2001, the European Union was broadly regarded (by most Europeans) as a noble and constructive enterprise that promoted unity and peaceful cooperation; the dream of such patriotic visionaries as Winston Churchill and Charles De Gaulle. Now, after decades of Islamic violence and rape, the EU concept is seen as being decidedly anti-patriotic, even anti-European. This was never inevitable and it is something worth being angry about.

Before September, 2001, the far-right in both Europe and America was close to oblivion. No-one beyond a few tattooed skinheads took the likes of David Duke or Nick Griffin seriously. Now, after 15 years of global chaos, both men command a social media following of thousands; numbers which continue to grow rapidly by the hour.

Before 2001, race riots in the United Kingdom were small enough and rare enough to be ignored altogether by cultural historians. Though there were often local tensions over black muggers and Indian corner shops, these were minor, resolvable blips on an otherwise shining record of integration and social harmony. Now, with Muslims slitting throats faster than non-Muslim migrants can make positive contributions to society, that happy reality is all but disappearing. All migrants, of all faiths and traditions, are having their record of integration thrown into jeopardy by Islamic misbehaviour.

It matters little to a rage-infected, low-IQ skinhead whether a bearded man adheres to Sikhism or Islam. As long as he looks like Anjem Choudary, he is Anjem Choudary. Muslim evil has endangered all Asians equally, and who can say for sure this wasn’t intentional?

Even Jews, the most valuable allies the Western world possesses against the Islamist hordes, have been assaulted and victimised by numb-skulled hotheads intent on punishing Muslims. It would take a very imaginative mind to come up with a more appalling irony than that.

And the fallout continues to get even stranger. Though the details of the story are still developing, the massacre in Munich yesterday is thought to have been carried out by an 18-year-old Iranian migrant suffering (as many Iranians do) from a cultural identity crisis.

According to the Guardian – just before the killer turned the gun on himself, he is said to have engaged a member of the public in a vicious argument about his national status, screaming at one point “I am a German!” and cursing ‘Fucking Turks’ and ‘Dirty foreigners’. This makes a lot of sense to me.

Not only does Muslim misbehaviour poison attitudes among the natives of the West. It also distorts and deforms the thinking of those unfortunate enough to be caught somewhere between modernity and darkness. Think of it this way: If you were a young Moroccan, Turkish or Iranian migrant in Europe, in love with modernity and desirous of shedding your Islamic identity, you might well find yourself whipped up into an anxious frenzy by the growing backlash against people who look like you, and for whom you might naturally be mistaken in the whirlwind retributions to come. In order to make yourself safe from those future pogroms, you would have to strive to differentiate yourself from your own community, all the while risking the disapproval of your family and friends (some of whom might be inclined to punish your cultural apostasy with death). And even if you managed this, you would still have to find a way of marking yourself off physically or bureaucratically from the community you have left. And so on.

This is a very hard task, and many see no way of getting all the way through it. (*As I say, details are still emerging about Munich. Even if I am wrong about the intentions of the shooter, I will leave this part of the text as it is because I feel the point is worthy of being made).

When liberals, despite their doubtlessly manipulative intentions, claim that Muslims are the principal victims of radical Islam (or Islam – as it’s more accurately called), I tend to believe them. No-one is born a Muslim. No child believes in Allah before he or she has learnt to fear violence and hellfire. To reflect on what 1.6 billion people could have achieved were it not for Quranic indoctrination is one of the saddest thoughts one can entertain.

In so many countries and in so many ways, Islam is ruining everything.

By far the dumbest Muslim response to Islamophobia is the use of what Leftists (in other contexts) call ‘whataboutery’ – in this case, the claim that many Islamic sins are shared if not exceeded by other, more respected communities, such as Hindus and Sikhs.

Forced marriage in Islam? – “Well yes, but what about the same practice in Hinduism? Why don’t you pick on them?

Head coverings in Islam? – “Well yes, but what about the same practice in Sikhism?”

And so on….

This is invalid for several reasons, but the primary objection is that people can (and do) leave Sikhism and Hinduism without having to fear for their lives. That is quite an important fact and one should never let the Muslims work their way around it. I have never heard of a Hindu being killed for apostasy, nor – given the chaos of ideas and approaches combined in that religion – do I believe a clear-cut apostasy from it to be possible. Hindus and Sikhs maintain their religious beliefs by choice, not under the threat of an early demise.

Of course, Hinduism and Sikhism have their own imperfections. Tradition of any kind is a retardant that freezes cultures at their least-evolved point in time. I don’t agree with nor do I condone the phenomenon of ‘arranged’ (i.e. forced) marriage in Hindu society. A woman should have the right to marry whomever she pleases. The caste system, propped up by Hindu theology, is similarly idiotic and must be abolished if India is to be taken at all seriously. ‘Castes’ do not exist in reality, and as Sartre put it ‘reality alone is reliable’.

I must declare a bias here. I’ve had something of a soft-spot for Hindus ever since I worked in a bookshop in Leicester before university. My fetish for Indian women has never gone away, nor has my gratitude for Indian medical expertise. After I injured my knee (badly) one time, I was taken promptly to the Leicester Royal Infirmary; arguably the best NHS hospital in the country and staffed almost exclusively by Indian migrants.

I have before me a compendium of Vedic hymns which I often enjoy delving into. The ancient Hindus were gifted in poetry and, unlike much Islamic literature, the canonical texts of Hinduism provide genuine philosophical insight for secular readers.

The flaws of the Islamic religion are often unique to it. Even when they are not, I repeat that they are magnified a thousand times by the fact the faith itself is compulsory, not voluntary. If Islam were only voluntary and the death penalty for apostasy was abolished, then the religion would be much more difficult to distinguish from other Eastern traditions. But then the death penalty is grounded in the Hadith, an authority second only to the Qur’an. This means that no reform is possible without opposing the judgement of Muhammad himself.

I welcome Hindus and Sikhs (in reasonable numbers) into the Western community. Voluntary religions can never be sensibly compared to a totalitarian cult.